November 8, 2004

REBIRTH OF A RED NATION:

Power and the evangelical womb (Spengler, 11/09/04, Asia Times)

A correspondent in New York reports that one of the local magazines proclaims that city "the one-child-family capital of the United States". That illustrates why the influence of American metropole will continue to fall.

The demographic shift in favor of "red" (Republican) versus "blue" (Democratic) states helped President George W Bush win last week's election, American commentators have observed. What we have observed thus far is only the thin end of an enormous wedge. Religious ("red") Americans will continue to have children, and secular ("blue") Americans will continue to extinguish themselves.

That America is two nations has become a commonplace. But what is the destiny of these two nations? Demographics is destiny, said August Comte, and the demographics of "blue" America closely resemble the dying Europe with which the "blues" identify. "Red" America, characterized first of all by evangelical Christianity, is thriving. [...]

The liberal dystopia has no room for children. Homosexuals, the vanguard of liberated culture, have none, and heterosexuals preoccupied with cutting-edge sexual experimentation have few. The coastal metropolitan regions that gave John Kerry overwhelming support in last week's election resemble Western Europe in some respects (although they attract far more talented immigrants than ever Europe will). The population of New York City will not shrink as fast as Frankfurt's, but the direction is similar.

Take this simple calculation: 44% of the US population of 285 million as of the year 2000 census were evangelical (or "born again") Christians, according to an August 2000 Gallup poll. Let us assume that these 125 million evangelicals average three children per family during the next generation, and that the non-evangelical population averages 1.6 children per family. Within one generation (assuming a 0.5% death rate for both groups), evangelicals will form a majority of 61% of the population. This does not take into account the higher birthrate of devout Catholics, who tend toward social conservatism.


Secularists, with their hatred of Western culture and their complete self-absorption, can obviously not win the battle for the future of the West.

MORE:
The Empty Cradle Will Rock: How abortion is costing the Democrats voters--literally. (LARRY L. EASTLAND, June 28, 2004, Wall Street Journal)

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 8, 2004 8:52 AM
Comments

Is there a good site that describes the difference between "evangelicals", "fundamentalists", "pentecostals", etc.... for the lay person to understand?

Posted by: Matt C at November 8, 2004 9:04 AM

Here's a helpful story about the religious voting blocs:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/153/story_15355_1.html

Posted by: oj at November 8, 2004 9:14 AM

44% were evangelical; This is an absurd number and surely incorrect. Where do these numbers come from? Whatever Gallup poll gathered these data is very suspect.

Posted by: ed at November 8, 2004 9:17 AM

And here we see why it so important to to the pervs that they continue to be allowed to transform public education into a homosexual recruiting program, and why they are so charged up about changing the definition of marriage.
BTW, most real Evangelists are very, very close to RC's in theology. No surprise here, as the Bible is the Catholic Church's book. There are some loose edges, as non-credals can pretty much believe anything they want, but for the most part if you shake the Bible what comes out is the Nicene Creed.

Posted by: Lou Gots at November 8, 2004 10:19 AM

I would have argued against this theory earlier in life as hyperbolic, but now believe it. I have two couples as friends who I could classify as staunchly liberal (but not extreme left). Both couples have mentioned that they intend to never have children at all.

Meanwhile, I have noticed more people who are non-political are lean towards the right that mention wanting 3 children.

Posted by: Chris Durnell at November 8, 2004 10:34 AM

"BTW, most real Evangelists are very, very close to RC's in theology"

My association with what could be called Fundamentalist or Evangelical Christians leads me to believe that they defend the Pope more than Catholics.

Posted by: h-man at November 8, 2004 10:44 AM

Even among the non-religious, I have found that parents with 3 children are invariably Republican, while a family with just 1 or no children (by choice) is often Democrat. The phenomenon indicates that the R's are more optimistic about the future and less self-centered about the present.

Posted by: curt at November 8, 2004 11:19 AM

Census Bureau,Ed.

Posted by: joe shropshire at November 8, 2004 11:23 AM

Here's a math problem.

The Clintons have "one perfect child". If you sold a large group of Clintonite families burial plots for their entire future, how many plots would you need to set aside for the average nihilst and his family's future?

A: 2+1+1/2+1/4+1/8...= 4 for the entire future.

Posted by: Ripper at November 8, 2004 11:38 AM

And the lefties will yammer "This just can't be so, it's just not right."

Wishing don't make it so, but they still like to make fun of Believers.

Idiots...

Posted by: M. Murcek at November 8, 2004 11:45 AM

I quoted both Larry Eastland and James Taranto on the "Roe Effect" in this essay for American Spectator:

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7349

Posted by: Patrick O'Hannigan at November 8, 2004 11:46 AM

One point this article fails to address which is an important one is that in America one no longer has to compromise his faith in order to achieve at the highest levels of our society. In Christianity and Judaism, historically, people would move from more rigorous forms of faith to less rigorous ones to no faith whatsoever over a few generations, as they moved up the educational and economic ladder.

For Jews, the establishment of an excellent system of religious education through law school, medical school and any graduate discipline worthy of mention has had an effect of encouraging Orthodoxy. I see it in my own family. For Christians, the development of home-schooling, Christian academies of some academic seriousness, and especially the Christian Ivies has had the same result.

The self-improvement impulse we all share used to compel us to move towards the secular. That is increasingly no longer the case.

Posted by: Bart at November 8, 2004 11:59 AM

So it appears that American Christians are on the same track as Muslims in Eurostan:

Outbreed the infidels until they are overwhelmed to extinction.

This effect is pure Darwin: The group that has the most success in reproduction will prevail. Funny how "We Hate Evolution!" has become THE litmus test of whether you're REALLY a Christian these days, but I've given up on finding any consistency in reality.

Posted by: Ken at November 8, 2004 12:28 PM

Ken,

Genetics and evolution are not exactly the same thing. And just how is this analysis any different from "be fruitful and multiply"?

Posted by: Brandon at November 8, 2004 12:43 PM

"Secularists, with their hatred of Western culture and their complete self-absorption, can obviously not win the battle for the future of the West."
True secularists don't hate western civ, they are a product of western civ. You making a strawman out of secularists and lumping everything you hate about america on them. Screw all the faux piety of the conservatives, they only like religion when in parrots their ideology, but when the Pope, says something they disagree on, like sharing the wealth or ending the death penalty, they mouth the crap about the Reds and Queers have taken over so let's ignore them this time, unless he is condemning masturbation as mortal sin, then we agree again. Some religious folks are intensely self absorbed, though they mask it with the God's instrument thing!

Posted by: Jake at November 8, 2004 12:55 PM

"Secularists, with their hatred of Western culture and their complete self-absorption, can obviously not win the battle for the future of the West."
True secularists don't hate western civ, they are a product of western civ. You making a strawman out of secularists and lumping everything you hate about america on them. Screw all the faux piety of the conservatives, they only like religion when in parrots their ideology, but when the Pope, says something they disagree on, like sharing the wealth or ending the death penalty, they mouth the crap about the Reds and Queers have taken over so let's ignore them this time, unless he is condemning masturbation as mortal sin, then we agree again. Some religious folks are intensely self absorbed, though they mask it with the God's instrument thing!

Posted by: Jake at November 8, 2004 12:55 PM

"BTW, most real Evangelists are very, very close to RC's in theology"

So, has anyone told Jack Chick?

I was always under the impression that Evangelicals beleived I was going to Hell because I was Catholic.

Posted by: daniel duffy at November 8, 2004 1:09 PM

Jack Chick is crazy.

Posted by: M Ali Choudhury at November 8, 2004 1:14 PM

I find the Catholic vote interesting. According to the CNN site:
Nation: 52% Bush 47% Kerry up 0% over 2000
WA: 36% Bush 62% Kerry up 1% over 2000
Ohio: 55% Bush 44% Kerry up 5% over 2000
PA: 49% Bush 51% Kerry up 4% over 2000
If the Republicans can get the battleground state catholic vote to mirror the nation, the Dems are in BIG trouble. One worry of course is that these numbers are from the skewed exit polls that have caused such controversy, so their accuracy is questionable.

Posted by: Pat H at November 8, 2004 1:22 PM

For clarity: on my previous post it is Bush that is up in all the states listed. Not Kerry.

Posted by: Pat H at November 8, 2004 1:24 PM

Secularism isn't genetic. I was born into a Catholic family of 7 children, and I'm secular. A lot of red state children will move to the city and become secular.

Posted by: Robert Duquette at November 8, 2004 2:07 PM

Robert: What do you mean, you've "become secular"? Did your parents think that the Pope (or his American representative) should be the President? If not, then I'd assume that they were "secular" as well, as I have always understood the term, i.e. that the political and religious authorities should be separate.

I've become quite frustrated with the apparently wildly different meanings people have in mind when they use the term "secular". Some obviously take it as a synonym for "atheist". Some seem to think it means that religious authorities should not be permitted to take a position on issues that are subject to political debate. And some, though the number seems to be vanishingly small in the heated rhetoric these days, use it in the sense that I do, which I always believed was the traditional one...

Posted by: brian at November 8, 2004 3:26 PM

Ken:

Yes, if there were such thing as Darwinism the ?Blue would breed, not only those who follow religious teachings.

Posted by: oj at November 8, 2004 3:33 PM

Jake:

Yes, Western Civilization is Judeo-Christian, so rants like yours precisely indicate a hatred of the culture.

Posted by: oj at November 8, 2004 3:36 PM

In our church congregation three kids seems to be the norm. Four or five kids is not usual, and I know at least one family with nine kids.

Salvation is possible for Catholics as it is for anyone who confesses Jesus Christ. The problem for Catholics is the extraneous barnacles of Mary-worship and saint-worship that tend to distract from the real thing.

People like Jack Chick or Ralph Peters are to evangelism as Pat Buchanan is to conservatism. Just ignore 'em.

Evangelism emphasizes Jesus' command to go into the world and preach the gospel to all nations.

Fundamentalism emphasizes the Elect, who are set apart and need to avoid worldly temptations, usually by limiting contact with society. Evangelism - Fundamentalism forms a spectrum. (The Amish are an example of hard core Fundies.)

Pentacostalism is the emotional wing of the logical - emotional spectrum, with Calvinism being on the Mr. Spock wing.

They all confess the Nicene Creed. They are differences in emphasis not basic doctrine.

Posted by: Gideon at November 8, 2004 3:56 PM

Robert:

Where do you live?

Posted by: oj at November 8, 2004 3:57 PM

i love Western Culture, and I am not going to be talked down to by some prideful religious snot either, or a multiculturalists, socialists or any other self appointed moral superior! I guess being a free thinker is now the new heresy!

Posted by: Jake at November 8, 2004 4:59 PM

Brian, I'm using it in the sense that people like OJ are using it, that I'm an unbeliever. He imagines that all Democrats are non-believers, else why would they not vote for GWB?

OJ, I live in Minnesota. Why?

Posted by: Robert Duquette at November 8, 2004 6:01 PM

Jake:

Yes, free thought is anti-Western.

Posted by: oj at November 8, 2004 7:39 PM

I think some places like New York and San Francisco present a chicken and egg real estate problem.

Nancy and I married in 1980 and bought the only 2 bedroom apartment we could find for less than $100K. By 1984 when No 2 was born we knew we could not afford to stay. The cost of private school and the cost of a larger apartment were well beyond our present or prospective means. We also knew we wanted another child.

Moving to Ohio was sort of Kismet. Yes, having 3 children a long term marriage and property makes you more conservative, but we loved living in New York and only moved because it was completely unafordable.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at November 8, 2004 11:47 PM

Gideon's distortions require a response. Those who speak publicly concerning others' faith have a duty to learn the facts before spouting inflammatry falsehoods. If you want to know what the Catholic Church teaches about the Cults of Mary and of the saints, consult authoritative Church teaching--the Catechism. Slandering the faith of a billion people on the basis of the inarticlate misunderstandings of the illiterate is unworthy of the level of discouse this site is accustomed to. For shame.

Posted by: Lou Gots at November 9, 2004 3:57 PM

In Renaissance Europe, cities were mortality sinks because of the high death rate from communicable diseases. Now they're mortality sinks due to low fertility rates.

What we're going to get is continuing migration from the larger families in flyover country to the bright lights of the cities -- "Country boy coming to the Big City" for real. This could become a stable situation over time.

And some of our cities may have gotten too big and crowded; a little decline in their populations over the decades might open them up a bit and make them more pleasant places to live.

Posted by: Ken at November 9, 2004 4:56 PM

Didn't have that effect on me, Robert Schwartz,

The so-called Roe Effect assumes that each abortion results in a net one less person being born.

This may not be, and probably is not, correct.

Despite glib pronunciamentos, the total number of offspring per women may not be very different as between women who ever had an abortion and those who did not.

There have been hundreds of billions of instances in which US couples used birth control, and at least billions of them prevented conceptions that otherwise would have occurred.

But before widespread birth control, there were not billions of births here. Nor, today, are their billions of American Catholics.

Somebody's lying

Posted by: Harry Eagar at November 10, 2004 9:02 PM

People who say they have sex frequently.

Posted by: oj at November 10, 2004 9:09 PM

Married w/3 children, Presbyterian flavored Christian and conservative.

The battle for the future of Western culture will not be won by atheists. People of faith (free thinkers included) will triumph. Of course, the victory won't be ours, but will be God's.

Posted by: ICHTHUS at November 11, 2004 11:09 PM
« TOO BIG TO BE COHERENT: | Main | SO 20TH CENTURY: »